Car Purchase, tyres fail the MOT

[Caramel6]

Bought a car from the manufacturers finance company. The car had been returned at the end of a lease period by a neighbour. Discussions about the car and the fact that it was going back to the finance company were had with the neighbour. The neighbour gave me the contact details of the finance company. The price of the car and arrangements for purchase were made with the finance company. The car was inspected by the finance company and deemed fit for sale. Purchase went ahead two days later (22/6/17) with monies being sent directly to the finance company who provided receipts. MOT due on 11/07/17 but actually MOT'd on 3/07/17. Car failed due to one worn tyre. New tyre purchased and fitted in order to pass the MOT. Subsequent claim made to Finance Company for refund. Claim rejected by Finance Company on the grounds that they couldn't have known the tyre would fail and that the contract for purchase was with the neighbour and not them. What legislation can we rely upon? I'm clear that the contract for sale and purchase was with the finance company. I would have relied on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but the claim made to the company for reimbursement was to made within 30 days of purchase (simply not having proper time to pursue) and, in hindsight I think should have been made before the purchase of a new tyre. I suspect that they should have been given the opportunity to put the fault right and could argue they were denied this. Clearly however we have an MOT failure certificate confirming the worn tyre. Suggestions as to how we might progress this much appreciated.

[Wylderose]

Re: Car Purchase, tyres fail the MOT

Any competent mechanic will tell you that it is very easy to tell whether tyres are worn or not (close to the legal limit) just by bending down and taking a quick look a them. Wear and splitting on the inner side of the tyre would require an inspection on ramps. The fact that the vehicle failed an MOT less than 14 days after purchase, having supposedly being inspected, leads me to believe that it was not inspected at all.

If the car was inspected by the Finance company or their representatives and then deemed fit and safe to be re-sold, then their claim that they could not have known that the tyre would fail is just B/S. A tyre does not wear to the extent of being deemed "Dangerous" in the space of 2 weeks. What you bought was a car that failed it's MOT because it's tyre was dangerous. It could have led to loss of life had the tyre burst at speed on a motorway. It was sold "not fit for purpose"

Did the MOT by any chance have advisories on it for the other tyres?

It might be worth requesting the pre-sale vehicle inspection sheet (assuming they will provide it). I am sure one the lovely people here will know the legal way to obtain it and Yes they should have to replace the tyre - although depending on what you bought, you maybe should have replaced more than one for the purposes of even wear and tracking. (Some vehicles, especially 4x4's you need to replace all four). They should also have to bear the cost of the Re-test if you had to pay for one.

If the vehicle was in fact inpected, then VOSA might be interested to find out about the slack standards of pre-sale inspection conducted by this Finance Company.

Although you say that they should have been given the opportunity to put the fault right, you would not have been able to legally drive the vehicle due to the MOT failure certificate and the repair work required - so the remedial work had to be carried out within the requisite 10 days. Also 30 days is an extremely small window of time to contact them for re-imbursement, repairs etc. They cannot argue the length of time between inspection and MOT failure. I think they have fobbed you off, hoping you will just go away.

*****
I don't see how they can claim that the contract for purchase was between you and the neighbour. If your neighbour had a vehicle from them on a Lease/hire contract then they never actually owned the vehicle. The debt for the vehicle was always owned by the Finance Company. The price of the car would have been the price that your neighbours would have been expected to pay had they wanted to retain the car at the end of the lease period. You paid the Finance company, not your neighbour. The Finance company owns the vehicle until such time as the full amount of the finance has been paid. A V5 always states that the Registered Keeper of the vehicle is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle.
*****